New Zealand National Anthem

God of nations! at Thy feet
In the bonds of love we meet,
Hear our voices, we entreat,
God defend our Free Land.
Guard Pacific’s triple star,
From the shafts of strife and war,
Make her praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand

Men of ev’ry creed and race
Gather here before Thy face,
Asking Thee to bless this place,
God defend our Free Land.
From dissension, envy, hate,
And corruption guard our State,
Make our country good and great,
God defend New Zealand.

Peace, not war, shall be our boast,
But, should foes assail our coast,
Make us then a mighty host,
God defend our Free Land.
Lord of battles in thy might,
Put our enemies to flight,
Let our cause be just and right,
God defend New Zealand.

This is Part 2 of the series exposing the latest recommendations by the Ministry of Education.

Gender Theory and multiple genders could to be taught in a “School-wide” approach.
The themes are so interwoven into the curriculum that it’s impossible to even teach around it.

Gender theory and other nauseating themes are discussed at just 5 years old.

For now these recommendations are simply a guide, but the schools that do adopt it will have no opt-out. It will be worked into every theme and aspect of school life.

The next step is making it mandatory in every school.

This is unacceptable, and we all need to take action on this.

Ministry of Sexualisation: Part 2

by Jared Luke on February 20, 2019

Online videos show 11-year-old Desmond Napoles dancing on stage in a bar while grown men throw money at him neonnettle

After introducing you to part one yesterday, the investigative series continues.

Schools should be a safe place to be, but for the majority, they will soon become unsafe. Safe Schools has landed in New Zealand, with the blessing of the Ministry of Education.

[…] No other special interest group is granted such privileges.We don’t devote entire lessons to the visually impaired, create ‘blind pride’ days, or include blind heroes in every class. We don’t demand teachers police blind-phobic language, or that they wear braille name-tags.

Perhaps we should. It would give a far more positive school environment than constantly bringing sex to the forefront of children’s minds.This is the essence of what the Rainbow movement is about.

The entire culture and worldview is centred around who a person wants to have sex with.

Perhaps we should just let kids be kids.

I recently wrote a four-part series of articles exposing the hidden aspects of the Secondary School program Mates&Dates. The program uses innocuous sounding words such as “gender stereotypes”.

“Gender Stereotypes” classes are not teaching kids that it’s okay for girls to like rugby and boys to like cooking. They are teaching a redefined meaning of gender.

Gender is taught as a “continuum” which has no relation to your biological function. This spectrum of gender holds that any child can be “neither” or “both” male and female because a person’s biological reality does not influence how they act.

If a girl is butch and likes rugby, she’s actually closer to being a boy – and perhaps she really is a boy trapped in the wrong body. Don’t worry kiddo, we’ve got scalpels and hormones to liberate you.

Thus a boy who thinks he’s a girl is a girl, in every way. Biology doesn’t matter, because gender is self-identified and merely socially constructed.

The root of the belief is that our Western “colonial” culture is oppressive, heteronormative and patriarchal and has forced us into two rigid boxes.

They are intent on destroying our western “construct”.

Ironically, Western heteronormative colonial countries are actually the safest for LGBT people.

The proponents of these ideas often point to tiny and obscure tribes where men and women have mixed gender roles, in an attempt to prove that gender is disconnected from biology.

‘Teachers were shown a graph with Barbie at one end and GI Joe at the other.’

Carefully reading through the image above, teachers apparently need to talk about sexual pleasure, how babies are made and that some boys like having sex with other boys – to 5-year-olds. Other examples given by The Ministry of Education suggest teachers can explain that children can express their sexuality through their clothing choices.

Let’s think about that carefully for a moment.Children… express[ing] sexuality.

The Ministry of Education has become the Ministry of Sexualisation.

Adding to the whole-school approach, The Ministry of Education wants Minus-18 posters plastered around the school.

The Ministry also recommends holding a “pronoun nametag day”, so that students can choose their own pronouns.

For now, these changes by the Ministry of Education are “suggestions” – until Chris Hipkins gets his way with his proposed “Tomorrow’s Schools” changes. Those will strip local parent-led boards of their power, and centralise authority in regional government organisations.

Visit your school and ensure you know what’s being taught, by demanding to see specific resources. (Please remember teachers and principals are not necessarily in favour of this ideology and many are afraid to speak out against it for fear of losing their registration or being alienated by their peers.)

Ask your children what they are learning at school.

Speak to your Member of Parliament and express your concerns.

Tell your friends, and share this information far and wide.

Our silence is interpreted as consent….

The time to push back is now, or else our schools will no longer be safe.

Whale Oil subscribers’ financial support is the reason why they have been able to offer their latest service; Audio blogs.

Safe Schools rocketed into the spotlight in Australia, mid-2017.
It’s been exposed as being overseen by several people who openly support paedophilia as a legitimate sexual orientation.

Gary Dowsett was one of them. He wrote a book about his support for “inter-generational love” called; Boiled Lollies and Bandaids; Gay men and kids quote

“How different then is the gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a paedophile and his or her lover. That kind of love, warmth and nurture is an important part of the paedophilic relationship”end quote

Gary Dowsett

Let’s come back to that another day.

The new recommendations by The Ministry of Education bring in special assistance for disadvantaged groups such as: the hard of hearing, dyslexic and autistic children and kids with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

This is a positive thing because children with disabilities deserve equal access to education. Their disabilities really are barriers to a fair education.

Teachers are already required to give special assistance to these kids and have been doing so, regardless of the attractive new Ministry of Education website; which has new and now easily accessible resources.

When a teacher has a student with a particular religion that requires fasting, the teacher deals with that child privately – on an individual level.
The teacher may make general mention of this in the classroom and this could include the teacher making specific mention that some peoples religions require it, without singling the child out for scrutiny.
They certainly do not devote entire lessons to explaining Lent, learning about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or getting all kids to participate in a Hijab day.

The recommendations for LGBTIQA+ youth, however, are vastly different from those of the disabled groups. quote.

Seven common concerns
Listen and learn from students.
Create opportunities for them to share their concerns and experiences in ways that work for them. end quote.

Petition request

That the House of Representatives urge the Ministry of Education to remove learning intentions for teaching gender diversity in the sexuality education guide and to remove the gender diversity teaching resources on the Te Kete Ipurangi website.

Petition reason

I believe that teachers are already required to create a safe environment for all students regardless of race, religion, language, disability, and sexuality. They do not have a separate requirement to teach the content of minority groups in the curriculum, therefore why should there be a new expectation to include the teaching of gender diversity. I believe that endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents.

MEDIA RELEASE

20 October 2017

NZ First Promised Anti-Smacking Law Referendum
Family First NZ says that if a referendum is going to be held on legalising dope as requested by the Green party, then NZ First should also be delivering a referendum on the anti-smacking law, based on statements made by leader Winston Peters and NZ First before the election.

In a speech in March in Northland, leader Winston Peters said; “We are going to repeal the anti-smacking law which doesn’t work and has in fact seen greater violence towards children.” He then further clarified his position in an interview on Newstalk ZBsaying that this matter should go to a referendum with New Zealand people who are “far more reliable and trustworthy on these matters, rather than a bunch of temporarily empowered parliamentarians.” This position was backed up by senior MP Tracey Martin.

“NZ First is now in a position to be able to protect good parents and put the focus where it should be – on rotten parents and actual abuse. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked good parents who smacked their children with child abusers, a notion roundly rejected – and still rejected – by NZ’ers. The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner that was so harmful that they should now be considered criminals,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

(In 2014, NZ First said “NZ First policy is to repeal the anti-smacking law passed by the last parliament despite overwhelming public opposition. Accordingly, we will not enter any coalition or confidence and supply agreement with a party that wishes to ignore the public’s clearly stated view in a referendum on that issue.”)

This morning, I appeared on TV3’s AM Show to comment on the research – and the law. You can watch the clip by clicking on the image below.

Conservative lobby group Family First has long campaigned for the right of parents to discipline their children using smacking. On Wednesday, spokesperson Bob McCoskrie told The AM Show the law is a “complete ass” and “parents are sick of politicians telling them how to raise their children“. This election year, he’s not the only one calling for change. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters wants another referendum on smacking….

This is just one of many family issues that will feature in our upcoming Election voting resource Value Your Vote.

MEDIA RELEASE

4 July 2017

Parents Smack Because It’s Effective & Not Abuse
Family First NZ says it is no surprise that the University of Auckland’s Growing up in New Zealand study has found that mothers – and parents in general – are still using smacking, and that research reveals that any forms of correction of children can be problematic, depending on the style of parenting.

A poll at the beginning of the year also found continued widespread rejection of the law and an admission that 2 out of 3 NZ’ers would flout the law if they believed it reasonable to correct the behaviour of their child.

“Despite having almost 10 years to prove the doubters wrong, the law has failed to convince anybody of its benefits or its effectiveness. In fact, the law has maintained its very high level of opposition, but most significantly, a high level of NZ’ers say they would flout the law despite the possible consequences. This proves the abject failure and rejection by ordinary NZ’ers of this highly controversial and flawed law. If it had any merit, it would have proved itself by now. Instead it has simply threatened and undermined good parents raising great kids,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

An analysis of the law in 2014 by Public Law Specialists Chen Palmer said that statements made by politicians to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children appear to be inconsistent with the legal effect of section 59 and the cases they analysed.

“New Zealanders predicted all of this before the law was passed, but their concerns were ignored. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked good parents who smacked their children with child abusers, a notion roundly rejected – and still rejected – by NZ’ers. The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner that was so harmful that they should now be considered criminals,” says Mr McCoskrie.

In the independent poll of 846 people undertaken by Curia Market Research at the end of last year, only 23% of respondents believe a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction should be a criminal offence – similar to levels in a 2014 poll.

A report at the beginning of last year analysing the 2007 anti-smacking law, “Defying Human Nature: An Analysis of New Zealand’s 2007 Anti-Smacking Law”, found that there was not a single social indicator relating to the abuse of children that had shown significant or sustained improvement since the passing of the law, and that the law has negatively impacted law-abiding parents.

Family First NZ continues to call for the government to adopt the ‘Borrows amendment’ which allows non-abusive smacking and which the National party had previously lobbied and voted for.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – NATIONAL DIRECTOR

Mob. 027 55 555 42

MEDIA RELEASE

19 June 2017

NZ First Correct To Revisit Smacking Law
Family First NZ is welcoming continued comments by NZ First that they will revisit the highly controversial and hugely unpopular anti-smacking law, but will be clarifying with the party as to whether they will accept the previous referendum on the issue or demand a new one, and whether it is a non-negotiable bottom line for any coalition agreement after the election.

“Despite having almost 10 years to prove the doubters wrong, the smacking law has failed to convince anybody of its benefits or its effectiveness. In fact, the law has maintained its very high level of opposition, but most significantly, a high level of NZ’ers say they would flout the law despite the possible consequences. This proves the abject failure and rejection by ordinary NZ’ers of this highly controversial and flawed law. If it had any merit, it would have proved itself by now. Instead it has simply threatened and undermined good parents raising great kids,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

In March, leader Winston Peters said; “We are going to repeal the anti-smacking law which doesn’t work and has in fact seen greater violence towards children.”

An analysis of the law in 2014 by Public Law Specialists Chen Palmer said that statements made by politicians and Nigel Latta to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children appear to be inconsistent with the legal effect of section 59 and the cases they analysed.

“Continued statements by the media and supporters of the law that there have only been a few convictions and only for hitting around the head are factually wrong, and also fail to acknowledge the investigations by CYF and the chilling effect it has had on parents and families. The police reporting also stopped way back in mid-2012.”

“A report at the beginning of last year analysing the 2007 anti-smacking law, “Defying Human Nature: An Analysis of New Zealand’s 2007 Anti-Smacking Law”, found that there was not a single social indicator relating to the abuse of children that had shown significant or sustained improvement since the passing of the law, and that the law has negatively impacted law-abiding parents,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Police statistics showed there had been a 136% increase in physical abuse, but also a 43% increase in sexual abuse, a 45% increase in neglect or ill-treatment of children, and 71 child abuse deaths since the law was passed in 2007.

“New Zealanders predicted all of this before the law was passed, but their concerns were ignored. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked good parents who smacked their children with child abusers, a notion roundly rejected – and still rejected – by NZ’ers. The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner that was so harmful that they should now be considered criminals,” says Mr McCoskrie.

A poll released in January found continued widespread rejection of the law and that two out of three NZ’ers would flout the law if they believed it reasonable to correct the behaviour of their child.

“NZ First are right to be revisiting the issue, and should repeal the law and adopt the “Borrows amendment” which decriminalises non-abusive smacking.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – NATIONAL DIRECTOR

Mob. 027 55 555 42

Almost a decade on from the passing of the controversial anti-smacking law, a poll has found continued widespread rejection of the law and an admission that 2 out of 3 NZ’ers would flout the law if they believed it reasonable to correct the behaviour of their child.

“Despite having almost 10 years to prove the doubters wrong, the law has failed to convince anybody of its benefits or its effectiveness. In fact, the law has maintained its very high level of opposition, but most significantly, a high level of NZ’ers say they would flout the law despite the possible consequences. This proves the abject failure and rejection by ordinary NZ’ers of this highly controversial and flawed law. If it had any merit, it would have proved itself by now. Instead it has simply threatened and undermined good parents raising great kids,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“It’s time for the politicians to fix this law. One of the most significant things the new Prime Minister of the country Bill English could do is change the approach of his predecessor and respect the views of the NZ public and amend this law.”

In the independent poll of 846 people undertaken by Curia Market Research, only 23% of respondents believe a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction should be a criminal offence – similar to levels in a 2014 poll. 72% disagree with the current law (72% – 2014) and 5% were unsure / refused to say. Opposition to the law was highest in provincial and rural areas, amongst current parents of children under 18, and National and NZ First supporters.

In a further question, 65% of respondents say they would smack their child to correct their behaviour regardless of the anti-smacking law. 28% said they wouldn’t, and 7% were unsure or refused to say. NZ First supporters were most likely to flout the law.

“A report at the beginning of last year analysing the 2007 anti-smacking law, “Defying Human Nature: An Analysis of New Zealand’s 2007 Anti-Smacking Law”, found that there was not a single social indicator relating to the abuse of children that had shown significant or sustained improvement since the passing of the law, and that the law has negatively impacted law-abiding parents.

Police statistics show there has been a 136% increase in physical abuse, 43% increase in sexual abuse, 45% increase in neglect or ill-treatment of children, and 71 child abuse deaths since the law was passed in 2007. CYF have had more than 1 million notifications of abuse and there has been a 42% increase in physical abuse found by CYF since 2007. And health data reveals a 132% increase in children diagnosed with emotional and/or behavioural problems and a 71% increase in children hospitalised with mental and behavioural disorders since 2007.

An analysis of the law in 2014 by Public Law Specialists Chen Palmer said that statements made by politicians to the effect that the new section 59 does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children appear to be inconsistent with the legal effect of section 59 and the cases they analysed.

“New Zealanders predicted all of this before the law was passed, but their concerns were ignored. The politicians and anti-smacking lobby groups linked good parents who smacked their children with child abusers, a notion roundly rejected – and still rejected – by NZ’ers. The anti-smacking law assumes that previous generations disciplined their children in a manner that was so harmful that they should now be considered criminals,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First NZ continues to call for the government to adopt the ‘Borrows amendment’ which allows non-abusive smacking and which the National party had previously lobbied and voted for.

The nationwide poll was carried out during November and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%.

A Child Protective Services Whistle-blower explains what to do if CPS or CYPs comes after your family.

This was written with the States in mind but it is just as relevant for New Zealand and Australia

“Just one month after working for Child Protective Services, I began to learn that the agency was not in the business of helping stop child abuse. I went after parents who smoked pot, who homeschooled their kids, and let their children ride their bikes. In part because of this, I left the agency and began exposing the horrendous aspects of CPS and how parents can protect their children from the agency. What I will do in this article is to teach parents what to do if CPS comes after them.”